Some leading legal and human rights experts say the US-Israeli attacks on Iran violate international law, with one saying the Australian government risks “destroying” the principles it claims to support by refusing to publicly address the issue.
As the US military launched a series of attacks on targets in Iran on Saturday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said this his military had “launched a preemptive strike against Iran to eliminate threats against the State of Israel.”
The US and Israel, both nuclear powers, have done so too has long warned against Iran’s nuclear program And his support for the militant group Hezbollah as a threat to world peace.
Under international law, the use of military force is justified in self-defense if a country is attacked or if the United Nations Security Council has authorized it.
Ben Saul, chair of Challis International Law at Sydney Law School, said the US and Israel actions violated the fundamental prohibition on the use of aggressive force under the United Nations Charter and international law.
“This is the most fundamental rule of international order since 1945, which is rapidly being eroded by actions like this,” he told SBS News.
“This is aggression by Israel against Iran. There is no conceivable argument under international law that this is self-defense.”
The US and Israel have argued that their attacks on Iran are a pre-emptive measure to prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon and to combat its support for terrorism through Hezbollah and other proxy groups.
Saul, who is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, said none of these justifications amounted to an armed attack under international law, a legal requirement to justify the use of force as an act of self-defense.
“This case does not come close to (the argument of) self-defense against an imminent attack,” he said.
“I mean, Iran has not yet enriched uranium to the point where it can be used to build a nuclear weapon. Experts all agree that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.”
Don Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, also does not believe the US-Israeli attacks were in accordance with international law.
“There is no evidence of an armed attack, there is no evidence that Iran is preparing to attack Israel or the United States, and there is no evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons capable of carrying out such an attack,” he said.
Rothwell also emphasized that the UN Security Council had not adopted a resolution on an attack on Iran.
“So on that basis there is no legitimate reason to try to rely on the use of force, as the United States and Israel appear to have done. [done] in this case.”
Emily Crawford, professor of international law at the University of Sydney, said the actions were “not even close” to compliance with international law.
“Every colleague I’ve spoken to, every piece of research I’ve seen says there was no evidence to suggest Iran would attack the US in any way that would justify the US attack,” she said.
Crawford said it also did not comply with U.S. regulations.
“American law very clearly reserves war powers, the right to make war, to something that is a vote in Congress. And [US President Donald] Trump has completely bypassed Congress here.”
‘Australia has hitched its wagon to the United States’
Australia has said it supports the US “to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security”.
When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was asked by reporters on Sunday whether the actions were legal, he declined to judge.
“These judgments and statements are for the United States and for those directly involved in the attack,” he said.
Other countries, however, were much more willing to pass judgment on the extent to which the attacks complied with international law.
Switzerland said it was “deeply alarmed” by the US-Israeli attacks and urged the sides to respect international law, as well as saying it was open to organizing diplomatic talks.
Norway’s foreign minister said Israeli attacks on Iran violated international law and called for a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
“The attack is described by Israel as a pre-emptive strike, but is not in accordance with international law. A pre-emptive strike would require the existence of an imminent threat,” Espen Barth Eide said in an email sent by his office to Agence France-Presse.
Saul said the Australian government’s rhetoric was “very disappointing” as, based on its understanding of government processes, it would have already received advice on the extent to which the strikes were in accordance with international law.
“I think it’s extremely problematic to remain silent about this,” Saul said.
“Australia says it supports international law, supports the rules-based international orderis trying to sit on the Security Council in the coming term, but is still destroying the United Nations Charter and international law.
“Canada and Australia have now supported the United States in this illegal aggression. And I think that’s extremely damaging when you have the countries that are supposed to stand up for international law, the ones that are now destroying it.”
Saul said these responses set a “dangerous” precedent for a “pattern of a New World Order.”
“Trump … does not feel bound by international law. He is bound only by his own morality and whatever strategic objectives the United States has.”
‘International law does not support regime change’
The US said the campaign targeted Iranian missiles and subsequent destruction of its navy repeated US-Israeli warnings that they would attack Iran again if the country continued with its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
The The US attacked Iranian nuclear facilities last yearand emphasized that it had set Iran’s nuclear program back decades.
Crawford questioned the logic of the recent attacks if last year’s attack was as damaging as the US claimed.
“It kind of makes you wonder, ‘If you set it back decades, why do it again?’ So I think ‘Iran is about to get the bomb’ [argument] is quite a furphy.”
“I know a number of people who actually work in international nuclear security, and they say very openly that Iran was nowhere near this and never will be, but this is all just a cover for regime change.
“International law does not support regime change as a reason for intervention.”
Trump said “justice” had been served by the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the recent attacks.
“This is justice not only for the Iranian people, but for all great Americans, and those people from many countries around the world, who were murdered or maimed by Khamenei and his band of bloodthirsty THUGS,” he wrote on his social media channel.
Rothwell said that if Khamenei had committed international crimes, he should have been arrested by the International Criminal Court or an equivalent body.
“There is no evidence at all that Khamenei is subject to an international arrest warrant. As far as I know, he is not even subject to arrest warrants issued by the United States or Israel. And even if he were, this would be an example of what is called an extrajudicial killing.”
For the latest news from SBS News, download our app And subscribe to our newsletter.
#IsraeliAmerican #attacks #Iran #legal #international #law #experts